 | | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) Right now, it's restricted by IP address to just BU campus. My understanding is that with the relaxed export restrictions, we're all good and could just have a warning banner asking people for whom it is illegal to please go away. But I'm (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) I don't think zsh is 100% backwards compatible with sh, so it's not an ideal replacement. Might be reasonable to add though. (...) Yeah, gaim is what you think it is. If I get requests for licq, I'll put it in. (...) We're looking at coda. But (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) *hide*. I am getting better though - the other day, I removed netscape from my computer, and did it with rpm -e :) (...) do you also check for space while choosing? RH has this annoying trick, when you painfully choose all the packages you (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) Didn't I lecture you about this before? *grin* (...) Hmm; I wonder how the 6.0 installer deals with that case. (It's generally better about error conditions. (Although, one of the improvements I've made is that it auto-retries once if an ftp (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) How are you dealing with export issues for Kerberos, gnupg, and netscape? Do you offer bones and slimmed down netscape/gnupg encryption? Or do you just restrict access with FTP banners and the like? If you don't mind, I might like to pick your (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) yup, I installed it in /usr/local for all the dept. :) (...) bash? zsh :) (...) nod, pam is nice. (...) nog... heh, if you have to put gaim, put licq too? (unless gaim is not what I think it is...) (...) mmmm... tripwire - let's me snoop on (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) yah, true... but I'm bad about using rpm anyhow, I end up compiling my own stuff most of the time... I know I shouldn't, but it's a habit I'll have to un-learn... (...) no, even worse... it just stopped, no backtrace - it gave me a warning (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) Oh yeah: those major differences are RH 6.[01] -> RH 6.2. RH 6.2 -> BULinux: - includes nqc :) - uses bash version 2; none of this bash w/ optional "bash2" silliness - kerberos4 (via a pam module -- much nicer than needing every app to be made (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) bah! (dan already explained what it is)... (not that we play anymore... we'd have no time for lego, and that's just unreasonable) :) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) Yeah -- disabling unnecessary servers is good, but not even installing them is better. Before, if you wanted the finger client [1], uou had to install the finger server, which is kinda silly. (...) Did it freak out and still let you continue? (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) [snip a lot of differences] cool - I just installed it today, as an upgrade, so I didn't notice most of these... I upgraded the daemons myself as they came out, and wouldn't let it touch my inetd.conf, so a lot of these would be missed on me. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) Oh man, have I ever looked at it. This release of BU Linux is actually based on RH 6.2. Major differences are: - kerberos5 support (urg. we use kerberos4, so that's more annoying than helpful) - 128 bit netscape navigator by default - includes (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) cool :) Heh, did you look at 6.2 yet? I installed it today, though I haven't noticed any major difference yet... :) Dan btw, since you're at BU, have you ever heard of Three Kingdoms, or more commonly, 3K? ;) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Adobe Illustrator to Macromedia Flash
|
|
(...) The upshot was that we were sent duff files. All is well now. ++Lar (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
So, when we release BU Linux R1 next Tuesday [1], it will be the first [2] Linux distribution to ship with NQC included. (URL), if you care. [1] or maybe Wednesday or Thursday. Hopefully Tuesday. Depends on the wheels of bureaucracy. [2] not (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: CGI question
|
|
(...) Javascript story: I just came across someone the other day who was mad because he had to "covert all his equal signs into double-equals so they'd work with netscape". Hrm. Not exactly confidence-inspiring, that. (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: CGI question
|
|
(...) nod, exactly. (...) you're very correct, I'm sorry. I don't have much experience with either java or JS, so the two unknowns are very similar. I do know that java is a respectable language though :) Dan (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: CGI question
|
|
(...) Reject it on the server end, and serve the form again with an appropriate error message. If you were using the CGI module (1), return an error if (for example) $cgi->param("Vlogin") returns a blank string. Oh, yeah. And don't rely on (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: CGI question
|
|
(...) I agree that JavaScript really isn't the best way to validate this. As long as you're doing CGI, why not do a POST to the same script, evaluate, the answers, and complain if they're not any good? With regards to the multiple fields, I think (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: CGI question
|
|
(...) well, not sure how you can do it with java, but you shouldn't rely on java for form validation anyhow - it's unreliable, and easily overcome. If you had to, you could add another text field, in which case enter won't submit the form, and you'd (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
